Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1928)30BOMLR197; 108Ind.Cas.465
Crump, J.1. This is a petition by the Tata Iron Steel Company Limited under Section 153 of the Indian Companies Act. The members of the company are of four kinds :-(1) first preference shareholders; (2) second preference shareholders; (3) ordinary shareholders; and (4) deferred shareholders. The first preference shareholders are entitled to a fixed cumulative dividend at the rate of six per cent, per annum calculated on the profits of the company in any one year. The second preference shareholders are entitled to a similar dividend at the rate of seven and a half per cent, per annum. After these dividends have been paid, the ordinary shareholders are entitled to a non-cumulative dividend up to eight per cent,, and then the deferred shareholders come in, and are entitled to a non-cumulative dividend up to twenty-five per cent, per annum, That is to say, the profits, which it is determined to distribute every year are devoted to paying dividends first to first preference shareholders, th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1921Bom93; (1921)23BOMLR939
Marten, J.1. This suit is one of a series of disputes between the Colaba and Mandvi sections of Bombay fishermen with respect to certain fishing stakes and fishing grounds in tidal navigable waters oft' the Oyster Rock in the Port of Bombay. It is in the nature of a test case, and certain other suits have been stayed by the consent of the parties pending the hearing of the present suit.2. In the present suit the plaintiff is a Colaba Hindu fisherman, and the defendant is a Mandvi Christian fisherman. But there are Hindus as well as Christians among the Mandvi fishermen. The stakes in dispute in the suit are Nos. 31 and 32 in the line of stakes lying to the south-east of Oyster Rock and known as Bhairchee Kau, which means further from the shore. The other. lines of stakes lie to the north-east of the Oyster Rock and are known as Durchee Kau or nearer the shore. We are not concerned with the latter stakes in this suit except indirectly.3. Very briefly stated, the plaintiff claims that th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1950All162
ORDERHarish Chandra, J.1. These are two criminal miscellaneous cases arising out of Criminal Appeal No. 404 of 1948 in which the applicants in Criminal Misc. case No. 941 of 1949 have appealed against their convictions and the sentences of transportation for life that have been passed upon them. In their application they say that they have engaged Sir Iqbal Ahmad to argue their appeal and pray that permission be accorded to him to appear on their behalf in this Court. The other case--criminal Misc. case No. 940 of 1949--arises out of an application by Sir Iqbal Ahmad himself praying for the permission of this Court to argue the said appeal on behalf of the appellants.2. Sir Iqbal Ahmad was an advocate of the Allahabad High Court and was later appointed a Puisne Judge of that Court. In or about the year 1933, on his appointment as a Puisne Judge of that Court he gave an undertaking not to practice in the Court or in the Courts subordinate thereto after his retirement. He continued to wo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1937All610
Sulaiman, C.J.1. This is a second appeal arising out of a suit for sale on the basis of a mortgage deed dated 15th October 1925 executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintiffs. The defendants pleaded that they were minors at the time of the mortgage deed, a certificated guardian having been appointed for them, and also pleaded that there was no necessity for contracting the debt. In the rejoinder the plaintiffs denied that the defendants were minors and also asserted that the defendants were liable to pay the amount under Section 68, Contract Act. The issues framed by the trial Court related to the minority of the defendants, the object of the debt and its proper attestation and consideration. The trial Court found that the defendants were more than 18 years of age but under 21 years, and that there was no evidence of representation either by the defendants or their father Sital Prasad. The Court held that the plaintiffs could not recover the amount under Section 68, Contract Ac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : [1942]10ITR152(All)
S.This is a reference under Section 66 (2) of the Indian Income-tax Act.The assessee was an advocate of the High Court. In 1932 he was appointed as an Acting Judge and he took his seat on the 19th April of that year. He remained on the Bench until the 27th July of that same year, when the High Court rose for the vacation. On the 17th October 1932 he was appointed as Additional Judge and on the 17th July 1933 he was confirmed as a Puisne Judge. The notification of his appointment was dated the 20th JUly 1933 and was published in the U. P. Gaqette dated the 22nd July 1933. During the financial year 1932-33 the assessee practised as an advocate from the 1st to the 18th April and again from the 28th July to the 16th October 1932. For the year 1932-33 he was assessed under Section 23 (1) of the Act on the 22n September 1932 upon his total income for the previous year. The total income was Rs. 89,865 of which Rs. 88,007 represented his professional earnings. For the year 1933-34 he was again...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1945All102
Iqbal Ahmad, C.J.1. This is a reference by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Central and United Provinces, under Section 66(2), Income-tax Act (11 of 1922) and the question referred to this Court is:Whether on the facts of this case the Income-tax Officer was justified in taking the assessee's gross income from money-lending to be Rs. 31,081.2. The facts that led to the reference, and as. they appear from the statement of the case submitted by the Income-tax Commissioner, are very simple. Shrimati Singari Bai, the assessee, a professional money-lender, regularly kept her accounts according to what is known as the 'mercantile accountancy system' or the 'book profits system of accountancy' or the 'complete double entry book-keeping.' Under this system the net profit or loss is calculated after taking into account all the income and all the expenditure relating to the period, whether such income has been actually received or not and, whether such expenditure has teen actually paid or not. T...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1936All396
Rachhpal Singh, J.1. These are three defendants' second appeals arising out of three separate suits to recover certain-sums of money. The points in issue between the parties in all the three suits are exactly alike and we therefore propose to dispose them of by one judgment. A firm styled 'Mohan Lal Babu Lal' of Aligarh, drew three hundis upon themselves. The form of these hundis was as follows:ToBhai Mohan Lal of the good and prosperous place of Aligarh, from Mohan Lal Babu Lal of Aligarh whose compliments please accept.We draw, one hundi on ourselves for Rupees 1,000 in words (one thousand) double of Rs. 500 payable after 60 days from the date...here deposited with Bhai Mangal San Jaideo-Prasad.Please pay to a 'Shah' after making usual enquiries in accordance with the usage of the market.2. The three hundis in suit were endorsed by the firm of Mangal Sen Jaideo Prasad, the defendants, as follows:This hundi is sold to Hoti Lal Babu Lal by Mangal Sen Jaideo Prasad.3. The plaintiffs in ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1933All764
Mukherji, J.1. This is a revision purporting to have been filed under Section 115, Civil P.C., and Section 107, Government of India Act. It arises out of an election petition filed by the applicant, Mr. Ghulam Nizam Uddin, against the opposite party, Mr. Akhtar Husain Khan. The respondent was elected a member of the District Board of Agra and his election was challenged by the applicant. The respondent produced before the District Judge, who heard the election petition, a document, said to have been signed by the applicant, by which it was alleged, he said that he had agreed for a consideration of Rs. 50, which he had already received, to withdraw the case, as he, the applicant, was aware of the weakness of his case. The District Judge inquired into the allegation of this adjustment of the election petition before him, and having come to the conclusion that the matter in dispute had been adjusted as alleged, he dismissed the petition.2. In this Court the applicant has challenged the va...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1935All310
Iqbal Ahmad, J.1. This is an application in revision against an order of the District Judge of Cawnpore rejecting an application filed by the applicant, the British India Corporation Ltd. Cawnpore, (hereinafter called the Company), praying that sanction be accorded to the proposed consolidation of the deferred and ordinary shares of the company and that 'the minute suggested be approved.' The application purported to be an application under Section 54(1), Companies Act, (Act 7 of 1913). The section runs as follows:(1) A company limited by shares may, by special resolution confirmed by an order of the Court, modify the conditions contained in its memorandum so as to reorganize its share capital, whether by the consolidation of shares of different classes or by the division of its shares into shares of different classes:Provided that no preference or special privilege attached to or belonged to any class of shares shall be interfered with except by resolution passed by a majority number ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 147Ind.Cas.148
Mukerji, J.1. This is a revision purporting to have been filed under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code and Section 107 of the Government of India Act. It arises out of an election petition filed by the applicant, Mr. Ghulam Nizam Uddin, against the opposite party, Mr. Akhtar Husain Khan. The respondent was elected a member of the District Board of Agra and his election was challenged by the applicant. The Respondent produced before the District Judge, who heard the election petition, a document, said to have been signed by the applicant, by which it was alleged, he said that he had agreed for a consideration of Rs. 50 which he had already received, to withdraw the case, as he, the applicant was aware of the weakness of his case. The District Judge inquired into the allegation of this adjustment of the election petition before him, and having come to the conclusion that the matter in dispute had been adjusted as alleged, he dismissed the petition.2. In this Court the applicant has...
Tag this Judgment!